Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women LEAD

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 22:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

=[[Women LEAD]]=

:{{la|Women LEAD}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Women_LEAD Stats])

:({{Find sources|Women LEAD}})

Claims notability, I originally nominated for csd however this seems to be more appropriate sue to the claims of notability. A lot of the sources appear to be contributors to a website rather then authors of the magazine (Forbes) or blogs. TO my interpretation I think it's promotional and ultimately doesn't pass notability guidelines. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Query - Could you be more specific about how it's promotional? You originally tagged it for speedy deletion (a minute after it was created) on the grounds of notability and blatant spam. I was as careful as I could be to keep it neutral, but I'm happy to accept advice on how I could improve it. Ruby Murray (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

::The overall tone is advertising in my opinion. Consider just the lead

::**Women LEAD is a non-governmental organization that provides women's leadership development training and advocacy in Nepal. Based in Kathmandu, Nepal and Arlington, Virginia in the United States. The group aims to build the professional skills of future leaders, in order to tackle the root causes of poverty in their communities

::My opinion is that the actual company does not met the guidelines for inclusion, if the sources presented were from the magazines themselves and not people commenting or self promoting blogs by the founder there would be no argument as it is it has not yet. I do believe that it does have potential at some point but that the time for it is not now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:::Understood about notability, but I'm asking about promotional tone. How can I re-word provides women's leadership development training and advocacy in Nepal to be less promotional? And how can I re-word aims to build the professional skills of future leaders, in order to tackle the root causes of poverty in their communities to be less promotional? If those sentences are promotional, then please re-word them: I'm mystified. Ruby Murray (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

::::Try reviewing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (If anyone has a axe to grind these peeps do). It's a clear cut difference for both the notability aspect and the neutral POV. Just a suggestion that you may want to focus more on the sourcing though, because ultimately it isn't deletable on just the overall tone of promotion alone. That's just one of the other reasons I thought it should go. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:::::Understood about notability, but I'm asking about promotional tone. How can reviewing the PETA article possibly help me address what you regard as promotional tone here? Ruby Murray (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

::::::Like I say try and focus on the sourcing because if there's a reason for deletion it will be for that and not for being promotional, which for right now I consider a secondary issue. It will be by definition promotional until it is NPOV and properly sourced. The PETA article can help you with a baseline on how a non profit page should look like. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:::::::"Secondary issue" or not, I'm going to first fix what you called "blatant spam" in your attempted speedy deletion, and "promotional" tone in your present deletion nomination. I've deleted one sentence to which you objected above: "The group aims to build the professional skills of future leaders, in order to tackle the root causes of poverty in their communities." Anything else promotional in there? Thanks, Ruby Murray (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

::::::::My last comment on this thread will be that while I still consider this to be promotional if that's all you focus on then you'll miss your goal overall as the notability will be your key to keeping it here. Read through all the comments and references you have here and go from there. Realize that my voice is only one we go by consensus so if I'm reading this off color then other editors will see that. it happens, consensus doesn't always follow what a person might want and we all have to accept that. So if I'm off base we'll have had a robust discussion and you have a more accurate view then I did. I'll move on and continue doing what I consider is the best interest for the encyclopedia and so will you 8) It's a good thing. Now I'm going to bow out because a pet peeve of mine in any discussion is when one person overloads the discussion with excessive postings, I believe that I've expressed my rationales well and would only be repeating myself ad naseum at this point, trying to keep in mind WP:TLDR so the article gets it's fair discussion.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::Never mind then. I'll quit asking. Ruby Murray (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:POTENTIAL. Company in question is relatively new and as such has potential to become more notable given time. Possilby merge into Education in Nepal douts (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

:*WP:POTENTIAL is more about obviously notable topics where the article itself is not of an encyclopaedic standard (and is an essay, rather than WP policy). I see it as complementary to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. But topics must still pass WP:GNG (or in this case WP:CORPDEPTH) to be considered notable enough for inclusion. We also have WP:TOOSOON and I think this topic is a classic case. It is gaining notability, sure, but it's not quite there yet. Stalwart111 00:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Userfy and Delete for now - as per WP:TOOSOON and my comment above. There are plenty of "sources" but I'm not seeing much beyond blogs and sources that are clearly not independent of the subject. The fact that some of the "more independent" ones carry the same company-provided photo is telling. There's a good case to be made, I think, for userfication. I have no doubt this will pass WP:GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH in good time. But until it does we probably shouldn't have an article in the mainspace. Otherwise we'll just keep coming back to AFD. Stalwart111 00:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • delete, per the analysis above: none of the many sources are enough for notability, being blogs, not independent of the group or not significant publications such as national newspapers. If it can't be improved with better refs then it can be userfied to work on further and either further work or the passage of time will establish notability. There's no time limit.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

::Some of the sources use blog engines (with default layout) for their web sites: this does not necessarily make them blogs. The Hoya, for example, is a student newspaper; the award announcement from peacexpeace.org is not a blog entry, but their site runs on WordPress; etc. So some of the references are blogs, but not all. Ruby Murray (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:::We understand that but the majority of the sources are blogs or written by people with a close connection to the subject, WP:CORPDEPTH is a good reference to you. now this is a possibility, but if there is a real impact made by this company it's probably in Nepal if you can find sources from Nepal that show coverage you might have a better shot. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Query for nominator - You originally tried to speedy delete the article as spam, a minute after I created it. You're still saying in your nomination above that it's promotional, but though I've repeatedly asked about this both at Talk:Women LEAD and here, I've had no answer back yet. Nothing's been removed since you tried to speedy it, there have only been references added, plus info about the award received and the flash-mob in Kathmandu. Will you please explain how it's promotional? Thanks, Ruby Murray (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

::I answered that with my last post look above please. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:::So you did - we were posting at the same time. I'll answer inline. Ruby Murray (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

::::If I might, its probably also worth understanding the distiction between real-world email "spam" and Wikipedia's policy WP:PROMO, often paraphrased as "spam" or "promo-spam". It basically just means any cause / product for which someone is using Wikipedia as a promotional tool - a use for which Wikipedia is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place to "raise awareness" of a cause, no matter how great that cause might be, because Wikipedia only publishes what has been published elsewhere. If you can find instances of other people giving significant coverage of the topic, you should list those sources here for discussion. It's probably worth having a read of WP:OR, WP:BURDEN and WP:NOBLE. Cheers, Stalwart111 10:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:::::I'm not trying to raise awareness of anything. The organization has won awards from organizations notable enough for articles on Wikipedia, which I assumed made it notable enough in its own right. I'll keep working on the references, but would be glad of any help. Thanks, Ruby Murray (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

::::::Unfortunately not, mostly because of WP:INHERIT. But the awards themselves might confer some notability if they are significant and recognise notable activities. But they would still need to be verified by reliable sources in any case. HIAB's suggestion to consider WP:CORPDEPTH is a good one. Stalwart111 10:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep, coverage across multiple different types of secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously notable and much more so than many other articles on organizations. CarolMooreDC 22:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.